331–340 of 865 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that like saying a store has a monopoly over their shelves?
Except that if I don't like one store, I can always go to another. That's the case with Android, and at least to an extent with Windows (even store apps can be distributed and installed by package if you don't want to use their store, plus classic Windows apps are still a thing). With iOS, it's Apple's way or no way at all. There's no competition.
Can someone help me stop playing the world's smallest violin here? Spotify knowingly built a low margin business living in the pocket of the labels (who force Spotify towards razor thin margins) and Apple/Google (who have, since before Spotify launched, operated app stores for their platforms which are to some extent curated and which are not free market economies). Spotify feels aggrieved that Apple does not allow i…
Something not mentioned anywhere in this thread either is the fact that, after 1 year, any subscription made through the app store goes from a 30% cut to 15% - what I would call much more manageable.
Personally, as an app developer, I think Spotify is taking the right stance here. I believe that Apple should take some cuts but not as high as 30%. I believe for some categories like microtransaction based apps Apple should take maybe 5%. Plus, I think that if Apple has a competing service, then it should waive the tax altogether. It's only fair. If the only function of the App Store (or Play Store) is to provide ho…
Why not only allow to use their payment system?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not compelled to use Apple as their payment processor. They are absolutely free to handle billing their customers on their own website and to turn off the ability to pay through their iOS app altogether. This is, in fact, exactly what Netflix has chosen to do with new users. https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/31/netflix-stops-paying-the-a... Nothing is stopping Spotify from doing the same thing with new and/or e…
Oh come on, why play dumb at the behest of a corporation? They ARE compelled to use Apple's payment platform on Apple devices, which is the problem and you know it.
Would you believe it after a citation showing that Spotify itself has already ditched Apple's payment system?
>Spotify & Netflix Are Bypassing Apple's App Store Billing Charges
Both companies are now driving new subscribers to pay directly, avoiding iTunes' 30% cut.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8471988/spotify-...
This exemplifies some of the reasons proprietary app store lock-in is bad for consumers. Progressive Web Apps -- web apps that are installable and available offline without any app store -- are a viable alternative, and ultimately a threat to Apple's app store racket. It's likely why iOS Safari continues to drag it's feet on PWA support.
What am I missing here? Why can Spotify not redirect users to subscribe on their own website? I'm pretty sure I signed up on Spotifys website, then logged into my iPhone. Apple definitely don't get 30% of that subscription fee.
According to the website, the debate is that Apple does not currently allow apps to do what you are describing. A few quotes from the timeline: > Apple now prohibits buttons or links to any other external ways to pay. > While we haven’t been able to include any buttons or external links to pages containing product info, discounts, promotions, etc. (even if they don’t link directly to a payment system!) since Feb. 201…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. How does this work for Amazon? Do they have to pay a % cut for every Kindle sold? Apple pulled its products from Amazon for a while rather than selling them there because they had to take a margin hit they didn't like.
There's a few good comparisons to make here, especially if we bring the Google Play Store into the conversation. Apple is big enough to pull their products from Amazon. Taking it back to the 19th century, Apple owns their own "railway". The real quandary comes in if Amazon gets so big that there's no way for a small supplier to sell a product in mass without going through Amazon and paying their premium. I don't thin…
I am genuinely curious, does Google Play violate the Sherman Act in the same way that the Apple App store does or is it a different clause?
It seems like allowing users to fairly easily side-load apps (ex. Fortnite) and the presence of competing app stores (Amazon App Store, F-Droid, etc.) should alleviate some concerns.
The problem isn't the amount of the Apple tax, and it buries the lead to make it about that. The contention here is that applying rules like this arbitrarily in a way that at least appears to favour your own products over your rivals is an abuse of your position.
If the commission rules in Spotify's favour (which I would think is likely, given the dim view they've taken of such matters previously), then I'd be astonished if Spotify doesn't file lawsuits in the US under the Sherman Act.
In any case, having this fight happen, and in public, can only be good for indie developers if it forces Apple to apply it's rules arbitrarily.